Gemma 2 27B vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct comes out ahead, 50 to 35 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
GoogleGemma 2 27B
35/100- ECI122.1
- Price$0.65 / $0.65
- Context8K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
50/100- ECI118.5
- Price$0.05 / $0.10
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is our pick
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Gemma 2 27B (35). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. Gemma 2 27B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityGemma 2 27BCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemma 2 27B 122.1 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5
- Lowest priceQwen2.5 7B InstructQwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.063 · Gemma 2 27B $0.65 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen2.5 7B InstructQwen2.5 7B Instruct 131,072 · Gemma 2 27B 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGemma 2 27B: Text · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Gemma 2 27B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 42 | 38 |
| Price | 25% | 56 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 10% | 0 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 35/100 | 50/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemma 2 27BGoogle | Qwen2.5 7B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 122.1 (best) | 118.5 |
| ECI rank | #152 of 165 (best) | #159 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 36.5% (best) | 35.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 1.4% | 2.5% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.65 | $0.05 (best) |
| Output | $0.65 | $0.10 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.65 | $0.063 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 8,192 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 2,048 tokens | 8,192 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 3 | 4 (best) |
| Released | Jul 13, 2024 | Sep 19, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 30, 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemma 2 27B$7.80
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$0.70
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemma 2 27B or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Gemma 2 27B (35). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. Gemma 2 27B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 input / $0.65 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.063 per million tokens for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct versus $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B (10× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Gemma 2 27B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemma 2 27B 122.1 (#152 of 165) and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5 (#159 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (115.8–124.1 vs 110.6–121.2), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemma 2 27B 36.5%, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 35.5%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 2.5%, Gemma 2 27B 1.4%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 2 27B and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemma 2 27B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Note that Gemma 2 27B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 8,192 for Gemma 2 27B. Maximum output per response: Gemma 2 27B up to 2,048, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemma 2 27B accepts text; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache 2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the newest, released Sep 19, 2024. Gemma 2 27B came out Jul 13, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemma 2 27B Jun 30, 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Mistral LargeThree-way comparison
- Gemma 2 27B vs Mistral LargeMistral AI · ECI 122.0
- Gemma 2 27B vs Llama-3.1-70B-InstructMeta · ECI 125.9
- Gemma 2 27B vs Claude Haiku 3Anthropic · ECI 118.8
- Gemma 2 27B vs GPT-4o miniOpenAI · ECI 126.5
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Llama-3.1-8B-InstructMeta · ECI 116.4
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Mistral NemoMistral AI · ECI 118.6
